Winning Lifts for Men and Women and ceiling time adjustments. Who wins the last two remaining?

Men’s :

120m Warrnambool Gift Winner : J.Boulton won off 4.50m.   (Winning time not used because of massive downhill track).  0.75m bonus.  Moves to 5.25m at Stawell.

120m Terang Gift Winner : H.Lindstrom won off 7m.  0.75m bonus.  Moves to 7.75m at Stawell.

100m Waverley Gift Winner : S.Morris won off  4.25m (equivalent of 5m for 120m). 0.75m bonus.  Moves to 5.75m at Stawell.

120m Hastings Gift Winner : N.Antonino won off 8.75m. 0.75m bonus.  Moves to 9.50m at Stawell.

120m St Albans Gift Winner : T.Griffin won off 9m.  0.75m bonus.  Moves to 9.75m at Stawell.

120m Wangaratta Gift Winner : A.Green won off 7m.  (Ran 12.30 and 12.21 = average of 12.25).  Therefore no lift bonus and ceiling time capped at 7m.   Remains on 7m at Stawell.

100m Frankston Winner : J.Nettlefold won 5.50m (equivalent of 6.50m for 120m).  0.75m bonus.  Moves to 7.25m at Stawell.

120m Beachside Gift Winner : A.Moloney won off 2.50m.  0.50m bonus.  Moves to 3m at Stawell.

120m Ballarat Gift Winner : D.Cameron won off 7m.  Not eligible for bonus lift due to no run over 100m/120m in VAL during this season or previous season prior to winning and his mark is in front of the novice mark. (Ran 12.18 and 12.06 = average 12.12).  New ceiling of 5.75m.  Minimum Penalty of 1.25m added to new cap giving new mark of 4.50m or less.  Moves to 4.50m or less at Stawell.
Also note that :
C.Sherman ran off 4m at Ballarat but he ran 12.25 and 12.23 = average of 12.24.  This means his mark is reduced by 0.25m and now ceiling capped at 3.75m.
R.Hanna ran off 3.75m at Ballarat but he ran 12.20 and 12.30 = average of 12.25.  This means his mark is now ceiling capped at 3.75m.

100m Docklands Gift Winner : J.Bailey won off 6.25m (equivalent of 7.50m).  0.50m bonus.  Moves to 8m at Stawell.

120m Castlemaine Winner : N.Rialli won off 4m but he ran 12.18 and 12.21 with .1 allowance = 12.29.  His ceiling then falls at 4.25m based on his RPM.  He doesn’t receive his full bonus but he does receive 0.25m to take him to ceiling of 4.25.  Moves to 4.25m at Stawell.

120m Maribyrnong Winner : H.Kerr won off 8.75m. 0.50m bonus.  Moves to 9.25m at Stawell.

100m Bendigo Winner : C.Vi won off 8.75m (equivalent of 10.50m).  Not eligible for bonus lift because his mark is already beyond the limit.  Reduced to 10m at Stawell.

Who wins the last remaining lifts at Geelong and Euroa?
Note - As per the handicapping rules … Any OGA athlete is not guaranteed any mark or lift.




Women’s :

100m Womens VRTA Winner : M.Beruldsen won off 13m (equivalent to 15.50m for 120m).  Not eligible for lift because mark is beyond that off the limit and remains on 11m limit at Stawell.

120m Womens Warrnambool Winner : L.Watson won off 9.50m.  (Winning time not used because of massive downhill track).  0.75m bonus. Moves to 10.25m at Stawell.

120m Womens Terang Winner : C.De Salis won off 7.50m.  0.75m bonus.  Moves to 8.25m at Stawell.

100m Womens Waverley Winner : M.Spencer won off 9m (equivalent to 11m for 120m).  Not eligible for lift because mark is already on the limit of 11m and remains on the 11m limit at Stawell.

120m Womens Hastings Winner : M.Beruldsen won off 15m.  Note eligible for the lift because it is a second win over 100m/120m and already beyond the 11m limit at Stawell, and remains on the 11m at Stawell.

120m Womens St Albans Winner : C. Wang Lecouteour won off 7m.  0.75m bonus.  Moves to 7.75m at Stawell.

120m Womens Wangaratta Winner : G.Boulton won off 10m.  Not eligible for bonus because allocated a UP.  Remains on 10m at Stawell.

120m Womens Beachside Winner : E.Keratianous won off 6.50m.  0.50m bonus.  Moves to 7m at Stawell.

120m Womens Ballarat Winner : R.Casey won off 12.50m.  Not eligible for lift because mark is beyond 11m limit at Stawell and remains on 11m limit at Stawell. )However see note further down where her ceiling is reduced by a further 0.25m capping her at 10.75m).
Also note that :
J.Payne ran off 4m at Ballarat but she ran 13.88 and 13.91 = average 13.89.  This means her ceiling is slightly reduced by 0.25m giving her a new ceiling cap of 4.75m.  Her mark remains at 4m at the moment.

100m Womens Docklands Winner : J.Richards won off 9.75m (equivalent of 11.75m for 120m).  Not eligible for lift because mark is already beyond the limit.  Remains on the limit of 11m at Stawell.

120m Womens Castlemaine Winner : A.Tzilantonis won off 18m.  Not eligible for bonus lift because mark is beyond 11m limit.
Also note that :
R.Casey ran 13.66 and 13.67 with .1 allowance giving her average of 13.77 from 11m.  This gives her a 0.25m pull to keep her under ceiling meaning her mark is now capped at 10.75m for Stawell.
T.Schillito from 12.75m created an average of 13.83 including the allowance meaning her ceiling is now 13m.  She is capped to the limit at Stawell of 11m.

120m Womens Maribyrnong Winner : I.Antonino won off 18m.  Not eligible for bonus lift because her mark is already beyond the 11m limit.

100m Womens Bendigo Winner : T.Schillito won off 11.25m (equivalent of 12.75m for 120m).  Not eligible for bonus lift because her mark is already beyond the limit.  Reduced to 11m at Stawell.

Wo wins the last remaining lifts at Geelong and Euroa?
Note - As per the handicapping rules any OGA athlete is not guaranteed any mark or lift.

Interesting summary!

Lift system in this season doesn't seem to have AS big of an effect given most winners appear to be beyond the 11m.

For the guys I think McKenna or Cordoma for Geelong. Maybe Paull for Euroa? Hard to say on entries :/

Cruttenden for Euroa perhaps she's been close lately and I don't think running Geelong. Geelong seems open to me for the Women's

Willo the Whisp wrote:
120m Womens Wangaratta Winner : G.Boulton won off 10m.  Not eligible for bonus because allocated a UP.  Remains on 10m at Stawell.

Great summary.

I do wonder, though, whether Gabbie Boulton gets to keep her winning mark from Wangaratta.

Given the wording from the Race Report,
“… issued Gabriella with a UP, which cancels her Stawell lift …” it will depend on how it is interpreted.

My understanding is that maintaining any part of the mark can only occur for someone who is eligible for a lift to Stawell since it effectively represents a lift from that athlete’s current “live” mark. So an athlete not eligible for a Stawell lift based on a Stewards’ decision cannot even keep their winning mark.

I'm not sure how athletes at Warrnambool get a bonus. And a few girls who have won gifts have also gone and run pbs on track. Special k. And Wang lucutor.

Soon to retire wrote:I'm not sure how athletes at Warrnambool get a bonus.  And a few girls who have won gifts have also gone and run pbs on track. Special k. And Wang lucutor.

The Warrnambool track is so steep down hill that the decision has been consistently taken to exclude any performances on the sprint track from athletes’ samples.

From last season, considering handicap changes and peaking at Stawell, the Warrnambool sprint track was probably about 0.45-0.50 seconds faster than the Stawell sprint track.

———

Athletes may run PBs but those performances won’t affect their eligibility to receive Stawell lifts unless they impact an athlete’s ceiling time to the extent that the Stawell lift places the athlete below that time. So it may be possible for Wang Le Couteur and Keratianos to receive some or all of their lifts, contingent upon the application of the other rules relating to lift eligibility.

Add the Payne-Train & Gentleman Jesse to the list of bonus recipients after Geelong.

Last chance at Euroa, with my tips being Taylah Perry & Ryan Camille.

Another couple of good winners at Euroa. Unfortunately Reddinguis breaks ceiling and loses bonus and a possible .25 pull?

I believe Kiara’s 2 fastest times on the day were 13.78 and 13.99 (an average of 13.885) which would mean Kiara is eligible for a 0.5m lift.
In my humble opinion, she has just about locked in a position in that Stawell final.

Dwight K Schrute
Dunder Mifflin Scranton

The issue is she has a lot faster rpms still in her samples that are within the 5 years that would count before her second fastest run at Euroa.

Dwight Schrute wrote:I believe Kiara’s 2 fastest times on the day were 13.78 and 13.99 (an average of 13.885) which would mean Kiara is eligible for a 0.5m lift.
In my humble opinion, she has just about locked in a position in that Stawell final.

Dwight K Schrute
Dunder Mifflin Scranton

From what I can find on VAL and World Athletics,

2 year sample
Euroa 2021/22
13.783 off 5m
Rpm of 0.119852173913043

5 year sample
Stawell 2017/18
14.067 off 3m
Rpm of 0.120230769230769

Average RPM produces a ceiling of 5.04m.
So Reddingius can retain her mark from Euroa but can’t receive a lift.

With masters confirmed today. It will be interesting to see what happens to the field. I can't see a precedence for a field lift as Coates ran behind scratch a few year back. Masters ran off -.25 and won the the rye womens gift in her last appearance on grass. With a minimum 2m penalty for the win. - 2.25 looks the likely handicap. And just to confirm, she can't be handicapped off her track pb's as her wins determine her handicap mark full stop.

For the mens I like history and precedence as a guide.
The lift system has only been in place a short time.

The last 4 runnings have been won by an athlete with the Stawell lift. 2 won the 1st event of the season to get the 1m lift and 1 saluted later in the season after receiving standard lifts throughout the season.

This points me towards Lindstrom & Kerr.

Lindstrom got 7m at Terang when he probably deserved 6m then got the win to go to 7.75m for Stawell. I didn’t think the win was that impressive but not sure he was fully wound up.

Kerr got 1m lift throughout the season. Popped his head up very impressively at Ballarat in the stable relay. Then won Maribyrnong the same as his stablemate Ware did the year before. Has continued the success with 2 good wins over 70m.

Soon to retire wrote:With masters confirmed today. It will be interesting to see what happens to the field. I can't see a precedence for a field lift as Coates ran behind scratch a few year back. Masters ran off -.25 and won the the rye womens gift in her last appearance on grass.  With a minimum 2m penalty for the win. - 2.25 looks the likely handicap.  And just to confirm,  she can't be handicapped off her track pb's as her wins determine her handicap mark full stop.

It will be very interesting to see what they do with Masters STR. A win at Rye smashing the old Ceiling time and her pb of 11.36 sec dictates the she probably gets in real well off the scratch mark. All VAL female runners were given a lift of around 1.25 m at seasons start so this probably negates the Masters factor to a degree. But having said that Backies will be in this years Womens Stawell Gift up to their eyeballs which I think is a good thing. Will make for a better spectacle then some of the finals we have had this season. Ballarat comes to mind. Anyhow entries are up which is great and I’m tipping a ripper final with Jess Payne maybe running in yellow or green

Soon to retire wrote:With masters confirmed today. It will be interesting to see what happens to the field. I can't see a precedence for a field lift as Coates ran behind scratch a few year back. Masters ran off -.25 and won the the rye womens gift in her last appearance on grass.  With a minimum 2m penalty for the win. - 2.25 looks the likely handicap.  And just to confirm,  she can't be handicapped off her track pb's as her wins determine her handicap mark full stop.

Bree Masters
Track best performances.
11.36 +1.5 becomes 11.435.
Rpm 0.11635
11.43 +0.2 becomes 11.44.
Rpm 0.1164

VAL best
Rye 2019/20 13.931 off -0.25, including 0.1 track allowance.
RPM 0.115850311850312
Rye 2019/20 13.985 off -0.25 including track allowance.
Rpm 0.116299376299376

Masters’ average RPM produces a ceiling mark of 1.11m so she can’t be handicapped in front of 1.0m

A few points:

1. SGEM have either stated or heavily implied that they don’t want athletes starting behind scratch in the Gifts, and will lift the fields if necessary even if it means some athletes lose some of their handicaps against the respective limits, so any precedent set previously with Maddie Coates’ mark is largely irrelevant. Listen to Jason Richardson in the first podcast earlier this season.

2. The entire field has been lifted 1.5-1.75m since Masters last ran in the VAL to accomodate the new start and ceiling times. Masters would have been lifted 1.72m given her handicap.

3. The Rye Women’s Gift had a prize pool of $5k, making the pull for winning, excluding breaking of ceiling time after the 0.1 track allocation, only 1.25m. If Masters’ run there was used she could have been pulled 2.0m back to -2.25m but would have been moved to ~ -0.5m for this season.

All of that is potentially moot as Masters has not entered a VAL event since Rye 2020 so she is likely competing at Stawell this year via direct invitation rather than registration with the VAL. The rules relating to invitation athletes are ambiguous.

From the Handicap Guidelines:
“Discretionary Lift for Classic Races & Stawell Carnival

The VAL Handicappers with the approval of the HRP, can provide a discretionary lift of up to 4 minimum graduations to athletes for Classic races and all Stawell events that are not a part of the athlete’s normal handicap.
…

It can also be applied to new and interstate athletes with a strong racing history in other competitions, such as state & national level amateur athletes whose handicap is behind novice, in order to place them above the starting time in Classic races and for Stawell events, without the discretionary lift being a part of their normal handicap.”


The ambiguity inherent can be interpreted in a few ways:

1. Masters is an interstate athlete with a history of racing in the VAL and whose history including winning penalties must be considered. She can receive a lift of up to 1.0m from her previous VAL competition mark, placing her on 0.5m, OR

2. Masters as an athlete not registered with the VAL is considered as a new athlete with a history of racing in national level competitions. She can receive a lift of up to 1.0m from the equivalent 14.0s start mark according to her 2&5 year sample (-0.61m, ie. -0.75m), placing her on 0.25m, OR

3. Masters as an athlete not registered with the VAL but with a history of racing in national level competitions is considered to exist solely as an invitational participant for the Stawell Gift and thus able to receive any mark up to one which places her at ceiling. She is handicapped to 13.8 and receives a mark of 1.0m.

The rules are clear that Masters cannot be handicapped in front of her ceiling of 1.11m.

Without attempting to prejudice the handicapper’s decision, we can probably find some guidance from the approach taken by the handicapper and HRP at Bendigo, where Ebony Lane was on 0.75m, Mia Gross was given 1.0m, and Torrie Lewis placed on 0m.

The handicapper and HRP will probably once again seek a balance between allowing established VAL athletes to be rewarded for regular participation and taking lifts via winning, and placing amateur athletes who routinely disclose all form on a mark that allows them to be competitive.

The handicapper and HRP will probably once again seek a balance between allowing established VAL athletes to be rewarded for regular participation and taking lifts via winning, and placing amateur athletes who routinely disclose all form on a mark that allows them to be competitive.

Tom

How can you say a balance between established VAL runners being competitive when the field was lifted 1.5m but the limit remained the same. Effectively making the limit from previous years 9.5 which is tighter than the open gift.

So what your saying tom. Even thou field got lifted in Bendigo for Lewis, masters starts in front of her ???. That sounds so logical.

Scotty wrote:The handicapper and HRP will probably once again seek a balance between allowing established VAL athletes to be rewarded for regular participation and taking lifts via winning, and placing amateur athletes who routinely disclose all form on a mark that allows them to be competitive.

Tom

How can you say a balance between established VAL runners being competitive when the field was lifted 1.5m but the limit remained the same. Effectively making the limit from previous years 9.5 which is tighter than the open gift.

That’s a fair question, Scotty. I don’t think anyone on the Rules Committee will object to me saying that this exact question did receive significant attention prior to the season.

Ultimately, there are two separate issues here:
1. The impact of the changes on week-to-week competitions and duties for officials; and
2. The impact on the Stawell Gift.

The new start/ceiling times were introduced to reflect the greater participation in regular VAL events by athletes who would otherwise be starting around or behind scratch. This previously including Fighera, Loizou, Lane, Coates, Masters, and Basic, and now includes Lewis, Cruttenden and Gross, amongst others.

The old 14.2/14.0 times represented quite a large gap between the then scratch mark and handicaps representative of the best female amateur sprinters of the time.

Any time an athlete behind scratch entered it forced either the venue to create additional marks behind scratch (the mark itself and an additional 0.75-1.0m to accommodate false starts) or forced the handicapper to re-handicap the entire field.

Not all venues can accommodate marks behind scratch - Keilor, Parkdale, Beachside, Daylesford come immediately to mind - and frequent re-handicapping would require a massive increase in the handicapper’s workload.

The new times don’t preclude an athlete requiring a handicap behind scratch, and they may well be adjusted further in coming years, but they certainly reduce the likelihood of it.

In the discussion regarding the proposed start/ceiling times we also looked at races other than Stawell, particularly Ballarat and Hastings, to evaluate the impact of the changes on athletes who were both competitive and near the respective limits for those events.

With the increase in numbers of Australian female sprinters below 11.7, and given that these athletes were more frequently entering VAL events, the change was supported by the Rules Committee and approved by the VAL Board.
__________

The Stawell Women’s Gift is a separate entity.

The Stawell Gift Event Management team, as organisers of the carnival, get to decide that they do not want athletes starting behind scratch in the Gifts.

They get to choose the limit for each respective Gift event.

Similarly, if an athlete is entered that would otherwise start behind scratch and needs to be moved to scratch, they can decide that the limit will remain unchanged.

I believe Jason Richardson flagged this exact scenario in the first podcast this season.

IIRC, he stated, and I’m paraphrasing, that the priority was to have Gifts with limits reflecting the prestige of the event, and that he hoped that athletes would still enter the Gifts, particularly the Women’s Gift, even if their handicaps were reduced against an adjusted ceiling.

My interpretation is that their preference is for a shorter limit (11m for 13.8s ceiling) and no athletes starting behind scratch even if it means fewer overall Gift entries, as the number of participants in the semi finals in the tv package won’t change.
_____

Consider the most conservative interpretation of the rules relating to invitational athletes in Bree Masters’ circumstances, assuming no start/ceiling change.

Masters’ RPM average places her on a start mark of -2.33m, so the next lowest increment is -2.5m.

Masters focusses on qualifying for WC/CG and does not run in any VAL meets.

Masters gets lifted the maximum four increments to -1.5m.

SGEM decides that the limit is 11m and no athlete will start behind scratch.

As a result, the entire field gets lifted ~1.5m, Masters ends up on scratch, and anyone between 9.75m and 11m loses some of their handicap.

Minimal difference.

At this point, if Masters is lifted less than 1.0m then the field must be lifted even more to place her on scratch, ironically resulting in even more athletes losing some of their handicap against the limit.

So you can see that the issue here is not the adjustment to start/ceiling time, but the requirements set specifically for the Stawell Gift, since no other event has an 11m limit.

Soon to retire wrote:So what your saying tom. Even thou field got lifted in Bendigo for Lewis, masters starts in front of her ???.  That sounds so logical.

Sorry, STR, I didn’t explain that fully.

There are differences between the way that the handicappers will handicap invitational/amateur athletes such as Torrie Lewis in a regular mid-season event versus their approach to the Stawell Gift itself.

For a mid-season event, the handicapper may choose to provide an invitational athlete with a smaller lift, reflecting that they’re competing against athletes who have received lifts taking them below start time due to racing in the VAL.

At Stawell, the handicapper may choose to provide larger lifts, and the guidelines permit up to 4 increments, to reflect the fact that many athletes are running at or below ceiling time, although, as described above, the interpretation of the rules regarding invitational athletes is complicated.

If Torrie Lewis also ends up at Stawell then she would likely be lifted to start in front of Masters given their respective performances this season.

When I mentioned balance, I was referring to the fact that Lewis and Cruttenden were both given handicaps to be competitive in the final, but were nonetheless beaten by an athlete who had run throughout the VAL season.

Also, there were many athletes who were not present at Bendigo because they had earned Stawell lifts, so Lewis and Cruttenden would likely have been less competitive against the full field.

As a final point, the handicaps for Stawell are not decided by the handicapper alone, but by the handicapper in conjunction with the HRP. As they did at Bendigo, Colin, Rob, Chris and Aaron will weigh up a number of competing factors  and “seek a balance between allowing established VAL athletes to be rewarded for regular participation and taking lifts via winning, and placing amateur athletes who routinely disclose all form on a mark that allows them to be competitive.”

Thanks for the clarification Tom. It's pretty loud and clear what results they want to see now.

Soon to retire wrote:Thanks for the clarification Tom. It's pretty loud and clear what results they want to see now.

I’m not across the Women’s Gift chances, but looking at the Men, the best amateur chance is probably Aidan Murphy, since his speed endurance and end race velocity probably translate well to a 120.

Even if Aidan was given his ceiling mark of 2.75m, he is not getting within a postcode of this year’s Men’s Gift winner.

2.75 for a bloke that has run 20.41 into a headwind would be a gift.
If you are allowing 2m for a red track allowance then throw that out the window because that allowance is ridiculous.

Sanchez wrote:2.75 for a bloke that has run 20.41 into a headwind would be a gift.
If you are allowing 2m for a red track allowance then throw that out the window because that allowance is ridiculous.

I was assuming the most generous of marks possible under the guidelines simply for argument’s sake. I would be very surprised if he will get it, but even if he did he still won’t catch someone running 12.0-12.1.

surely on common sense alone you couldn't possibly put Murphy 2m in front of Dhruv. DRC ran 12.35 off 1m in the backies last year AND was mere inches from making the gift final off 0.75m. Combined with the fact that Murphy is significantly faster than Dhruv and one of the best 200m the country has ever seen, young Aiden would be within "a postcode of the winner...."

Dwight K Schrute
Dunder Mifflin Scranton

Dwight Schrute wrote:surely on common sense alone you couldn't possibly put Murphy 2m in front of Dhruv. DRC ran 12.35 off 1m in the backies last year AND was mere inches from making the gift final off 0.75m. Combined with the fact that Murphy is significantly faster than Dhruv and one of the best 200m the country has ever seen, young Aiden would be within "a postcode of the winner...."

Dwight K Schrute
Dunder Mifflin Scranton

Agreed. Although Dhruv isn’t in the shape he was last season so probably not easily comparable.

As a comparison, Capo beat myself and Tim Mson in 1990 final off 2.25m, and at that time hadn’t run a 20.4. That is a seriously good time.